Just to recap what we’ve learned today: the phrase “blood libel” is, per a host of “reasonable” people in the media and in public office who have reached an interpretive agreement, objectively anti-Semitic — regardless of the intent behind its usage — when not deployed in a particular pre-vetted context, or by a particular identity group who has claimed ownership of the phrase and have the requisite authenticity to use

Yes. The Tuscon “rampage” did that. Not Democrat and media attempts to tether the tragedy to talk radio and the TEA Party, this generation’s version of the “angry white males” who skulked about being all angry and white in the 90s. — And which angry white males, incidentally, happened to rear their ugly, hate-filled heads — and were ubiquitous objects of media scrutiny and analysis — in the run-up to

Harsanyi: My only contribution to the crumbling discourse, it seems, is believing in the tenets of classical liberalism. That, in and of itself, is a sin. This leaves the person with two choices: revise your viewpoint or shut up. Which, of course, is the point. The always-civil Jacob Weisberg of Slate was more forceful in this regard, claiming that, “At the core of the far right’s culpability is its ongoing

Sarah Palin: “America’s Enduring Strength” from Sarah Palin on Vimeo. I’d have gone with fuck you, you cynical cunts, we’re not going anywhere, so you’d better get used to it, but I can understand how a Christian might go a different rhetorical direction.